D&D (2024) Playtest 8 Spell Discussion

[Maxperson]

The implication of a readable spellbook is, a Fighter can pick up a spellbook and try to figure out how to cast a spell.

If he's trained as a wizard, yes. The written language of magic is for wizards.

The Fighter lacks spell slots. So it is impossible to for the Fighter to spellcast during combat.

Correct. At least if he isn't multiclassed as a spellcaster of some sort or hasn't taken a spellcasting fighter subclass.

But the Fighter CAN attempt to perform a "ritual".

If he takes the ritual magic feat, yes.

2024 should embrace the possibility that anyone can attempt to perform a ritual.

That's what the feat is for. Currently anyone(who has the stats for the feat) CAN attempt a ritual. It's not limited to casters.

Apply an ability check, using the relevant ability and skill depending on the class of the ritual, to see if the ritual succeeds.

This is actually a cool house rule in my opinion. The only change I would make is that if you aren't a caster you roll at disadvantage(or some other penalty). Non-casters shouldn't be as good as casters at casting magic, even ritual magic. Excepting being trained in it via the feat of course.

Even better make a "fumble" (a critical failure on the ability check) mean that ritual goes wrong.

That could be part of all of the penalty. It wouldn't be enough for me, but it's a cool penalty for non-casters using that house rule.

A caster can spend a spell slot to guarantee the success of a ritual. But most of the time, a caster wants to save ones slots for combat, and will also risk fumbling a ritual.

If it affects casters, then non-casters need another penalty. The whole point of ritual magic is to not use slots if you are a caster.

 

[Yaarel]

If he's trained as a wizard, yes. The written language of magic is for wizards.

To make magic unreadable lacks mythological verisimilitude − plus things get weird under scrutiny.

If he takes the ritual magic feat, yes.

Ritual Magic is unworthy of a feat. Too many better feats compete for the feat choice.

Give ritual performance to anyone for free.

This is how most reallife stories about magic happen, whether ancient, medieval, or modern folkbeliefs, or movies or tv shows. Some everyperson gets a hold of a magic ritual, tries to perform it, and things may or may not work out.

Give ritual performance for free. Let magic rituals be part of the fantasy world experience.

This is actually a cool house rule in my opinion. The only change I would make is that if you aren't a caster you roll at disadvantage(or some other penalty). Non-casters shouldn't be as good as casters at casting magic, even ritual magic.

In this approach. Anyone can make an ability check to try perform a ritual.

However a caster − namely anyone that has a spell slot − can spend the slot to automatically succeed at a ritual.

Thus casters are strictly better at rituals.

Casters also have the option to save their slots for combat, thus use an ability to try perform the feat without spending a slot. Typically, casters will have better ability and skill for the ritual.

 

[Maxperson]

To make magic unreadable lacks mythological verisimilitude − plus things get weird under scrutiny.

I don't agree. To the first point while it MIGHT(I don't know all mythology) lack mythological verisimilitude, that doesn't matter. It does fit how RPGs and the fantasy genre, both of which are where D&D is at. D&D isn't trying to be mythology.

Ritual Magic is unworthy of a feat. Too many better feats compete for the feat choice.

I disagree. There are many reasons to choose a feat, and ritual magic is plenty good enough depending on the concept.

Give ritual performance to anyone for free.

Why? It makes absolutely no sense to do so.

This is how most reallife stories about magic happen, whether ancient, medieval, or modern folkbeliefs, or movies or tv shows. Some everyperson gets a hold of a magic ritual, tries to perform it, and things may or may not work out.

No, real life stories are not about how 6 billion people can all do ritual magic. A few stories do that, but mostly it's a witch or someone else with magic potential or training.

Thus casters are strictly better at rituals.

No, they aren't really. It's simply not worth using up a spell slot to avoid a 1 in 20 chance of fumble. They might as well just memorize the dang thing and cast it without having to do a long ritual.

 

[Yaarel]

I don't agree. To the first point while it MIGHT(I don't know all mythology) lack mythological verisimilitude, that doesn't matter. It does fit how RPGs and the fantasy genre, both of which are where D&D is at. D&D isn't trying to be mythology.

In the fantasy genre, most normal people perform religious "rituals". Granting rituals for free, means these divine rituals actually matter within the magical world.

In the fantasy genre, untrained normal people perform "rituals" that inadvertently or purposely summon Cthulhu, demons, dragons, ghosts, etcetera. Give rituals for free, and the fantasy genre can actually happen.

There are many reasons to choose a feat, and ritual magic is plenty good enough depending on the concept.

A crappy feat is still crappy. The Ritual Caster feat is crappy. Even a designer complained that despite wanting to take the Ritual feat in principle, it simply wasnt possible because of the opportunity cost of not getting a good feat.

Let any character attempt to perform a ritual.

 

[Maxperson]

In the fantasy genre, most normal people perform religious "rituals". Granting rituals for free, means these divine rituals actually matter within the magical world.

I think you need to read and watch more fantasy more. Most cannot perform magical rituals. Can they perform unmagical religious rituals? Sure. I'd let the PCs perform all the non-magical rituals they want.

In the fantasy genre, untrained normal people perform "rituals" that inadvertently or purposely summon Cthulhu, demons, dragons, ghosts, etcetera. Give rituals for free, and the fantasy genre can actually happen.

In relatively few instances, yes. In the vast majority, no those don't occur.

Let any character attempt to perform a ritual.

Make that rule. WotC won't, though.

 

[Chaosmancer]

I dont mean to combine all three books into one book.

I mean, the 2024 Players Handbook needs all the rules to play a complete game of D&D.

We know the 2024 Players Handbook will have an expanded appendix for Beasts. These are mainly for Wild Shape, Familiar, Mount, etcetera. I hope they make nonmagical animal amalgums, like Owlbear and Griffon, into the Beast creature type.

But the DM can also use these same Beasts in combat encounters against the player characters.

The Player Handbook wont have every Beast in the came, only a "core" selection.

The DM can also create full characters to use to challenge the players, as Humanoid opponents.

But there needs to be NPCs with monster statblocks anyway, such as for hirelings in the economy sections. These statblocks can also represent player friends and relations.

Rules for the DM to create NPC Humanoid statblocks can also serve as opponents against the player characters.

In this way, with only the Players Handbook, the DM can use this selection of Humanoids and Beasts to run a satisfying game, pitting mainly Humanoid opponents, such as Thieves and hostile Mages, against the player characters.

I understand the theory, but in the end, it would be a poor game.

Using the PC rules to craft NPC opponents is hard work, and very risky. Their power level is simply too vastly different from normal NPCs. I also can't imagine the inclusion of NPC creation rules, it is not needed for "hirelings" as such people are not standard enough fair.

Additionally, while there is an extended Beast section, it will not provide enough satisfying content. Not without becoming an extreme addition to the book.

I understand the impulse. I just don't see it as practical for DnD.

 

[Chaosmancer]

But make no sense in that context... So you rather use a guideline of the DMG to adapt the game.

Regarding siege weapons and tremor sense. Could be seen as rules. The question is: are equipment lists rules? Are monster abilities rules? Or are those just lists you can interchange and still play the game with the actual rules...

Yes, equipment lists and monster abilities fall under the category of "rules". You may want to call them "rule elements" but they are text which informs you how the game functions.

After all, starting equipment, hit dice, and Class Abilities are also rules, despite also being lists and also interchangeable. I can find no functional difference between the two.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I can find no functional difference between the two.

I do. But I would say, you can't randomly substitute them and still have a functioning game, despite being to be able to play by the rules with them.

So yes. They belong to the rules in a rather important way. I think monsters are a bit more removed from that. You could just theoretically build them with player rules, but this is unwieldy.
And siege weaponry rather falls under monsters than weapons. It usually is just something with hp and a to hit and a damage number used as adversary.

So in the end I am somewhere in the middle.

The PHB is the most important book as it contains the base rules, how the game works.
HB also contains necessary supplement lists that are needed to play the game by the rules.

MM has examples of adversaries and rules how to read and use them.

DMG has some important examples of magic items and rules for exploration (albeit spread over several chapters so it is so useless, that I just don't use them) and examples of alternate rules.

TLDR
You can play the game with PHB only. Having the MM is very useful, as you have premade adversaries.
The DMG is more inspirational material than anything else.

 

[Yaarel]

I understand the theory, but in the end, it would be a poor game.

Using the PC rules to craft NPC opponents is hard work, and very risky. Their power level is simply too vastly different from normal NPCs. I also can't imagine the inclusion of NPC creation rules, it is not needed for "hirelings" as such people are not standard enough fair.

Additionally, while there is an extended Beast section, it will not provide enough satisfying content. Not without becoming an extreme addition to the book.

I understand the impulse. I just don't see it as practical for DnD.

We already know the 2024 Players Handbook will have a decent selection of Beasts.

If the 2024 Players Handbook is the only book one needs to play a complete game of D&D, then the DM needs information about NPCs to populate the world. A selection of NPCs and NPC creation is necessary for a game.

 

[Yaarel]

I think you need to read and watch more fantasy more. Most cannot perform magical rituals. Can they perform unmagical religious rituals? Sure. I'd let the PCs perform all the non-magical rituals they want.

In relatively few instances, yes. In the vast majority, no those don't occur.

Make that rule. WotC won't, though.

For example, the show Supernatural.

Neither of the brothers are mages, nor innately magical. But they do on occasion perform magical rituals successfully, because they have seen how magic works and have some familiarity.

In other words, both are proficient in the Arcana skill.

Anyone who participates in a sacred community, akin to a synagogue, church, temple, or household shrine, is performing a divine ritual.